Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
checks. that's helped them win more elections in red states and people like harry reid get elected in nevada, a pretty pro-gun state. the question is, is that going to be productive for people who want to see gun control get passed? will this mean an increased prag ma tichl, mean that the issue has a better chance of getting through? >> and what's the answer to that question? do we know? >> i don't have a crystal ball, but if you talk to people who support gun control, they have been beaten down for a long time, losing consistently for 20 years will do that to you. and they feel better than they ever have. there is, as you know, a lot of momentum behind this issue. a democratic president who has the bully pulpit who is using this on his agenda and now we have even some republicans coming to the table and signaling that there may be some kind of bipartisan action that can get through congress on gun control. that would be the first time since the brady bill in 1993, if that happens. >> molly ball from "the atlantic," thank you very much. >>> first lady michelle obama will go to chic
that a cabinet secretary needed 60 votes and both of those bush nominees facing harry reid and democrats and environmental agency head. both had to meet 60 vote threshold. now it has happened to hagel. the third time in ten years. so it's not unprecedented. my question to you, why rush it? >> because the department of defense is responsible for our military. we are currently in conflict right now. i think this is something that has to deal with national security. you really need to get serious and get to work here. we can't be talking about things that are not relevant. they are asking for information about benghazi and chuck hagel had nothing to do with benghazi. if you wanted questions about that you need to talk on other people. >> heather: they got one of those questions answered, that is whether or not president obama himself personally called libyan officials on the night of september 11th but the respect on hagel to get a simple answer which we now know the answer was no. brad? >> you are absolutely right. we had some leverage over the white house and hagel was used at that levera
haven't seen a solution from the president or harry reid. the republicans have put our plan on the table and passed it through the house of representatives. now it is incumbent upon the president to show leadership. >> let's turn to hagel. the nomination of course something taken up once the break is over. this is bob woodward on fox news talking about democratic senators calling the white house asking if hagel was going to withdraw. this is what he said was the white house response. >> the answer is an emphatic no. remember john urlicman used to talk about twisting slowly in the wind. >> why wouldn't the white house jump to hagel's defense? >> i think they have. had john mccain out this weekend. the expectation is that senator hagel is going to -- that vote is going to happen and he will be our next secretary of defense. what i think is deplorable and john mccain was very honest this weekend and part of what prompted some of democrat's questions. republicans made it clear this is a grudge match. lindsey graham is saying he is not going to vote on this or won't move on this until he find
senate and harry reid is in no position to point fingers at people for inaction, right? >> we ought to pass a budget and we're going to pass a budget this year. but let's also lack at the fact that there's not a single plan out there. i've been involved in every one of these bipartisan plans that hasn't said, you need about, on the minimum, about $1.2 trillion if you're going to do a new revenue, if you're going to do a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. i'm all for believing we have boot got to do more entitlement reform, but we have to do more revenues as well. and opposed to going through all of these stupid cuts, not only have we heard about 750,000 lost jobs, but in certain cases, we'll cost the taxpayers money. when we buy ten tanks, we get a volume discount. we'll break those contracts. when you do four years of cancer research, and don't get the first three years, you'll flush that. that's less meat and eggs going to the grocery store, driving up grocery prices. this was set up to be the stupidest of all options. whoever dreamed it up, who knows at this point, but at this p
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)